tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 13, 2014 2:00pm-4:01pm EDT
time of the abe government. i am relieved to hear your comments today and i'm delighted you could join us today and give information and remarks. please join me in thanking dr. park jin. [applause] >> as this program comes to a close, quick note -- we joined in progress so we missed the first two minutes but you can see it in its entirety on our website, c-span.org. the new veterans affairs secretary is looking at a number as he settleses
into his job good we are recording an appearance in memphis and we will have that for you to watch later today. members of congress away on the summer break are tweeting out summer activities. daniel webster -- "these to host the house veteran affairs chairman representative jeff miller to share an update on va care." -- cap thear mcmorris rodgers says " revisiting the mcdonald's where i work to pay for college." experts tasked with tracking the spread of diseases like rabies. pox in a 2 of americans was traced to prairie
dogs. >> we investigate animals, emerging diseases in people often traced back to animals. thate of these situations occurred in 2003, the first hint we had that something had gone terribly wrong, you can see in this picture up here, three-year-old girl who lived in wisconsin and she developed these very odd, very disturbing skin lesions. i've too young to be vaccinated for smallpox. but there are many researchers as it is he who dedicated their early careers to eradicating this disease from the world. we were very, very worried, especially when a second case was reported just a few days later from another part of wisconsin. these 2 patients didn't know each other. but they had one piece of history and common -- they had
both been bitten by 6 pet prairie dogs. >> you can watch all of c-span's look at the centers for disease control "disease detectives" tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. and on book tv, or focus on iran and the united states. 3, the theme is world war ii. . >> here are some of the highlights for this weekend. friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, a history to are looking at the civil war. saturday, "the communicators" visits a technology firm on capitol hill. sunday, pat buchanan. c-span2 friday night at 8:00 eastern, books on hillary clinton, barack obama, and edwards noted -- edward snowden.
halper., daniel sunday, casper, wyoming. negro leaguend the kansas city monarchs. saturday, the civil war and slavery in the movies. sunday, herbert hoover. let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. joined the c-span conversation -- like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> heritage foundation yesterday hosted a discussion on union membership. the group released a survey showing that millions of union members want to leave their union. we will hear from 2 former teachers union officials and a childcare provider who does not want to join the union.
>> good afternoon. welcome to the heritage foundation. we welcome all those who join us on these occasions at our heritage.org website. make that last courtesy check that cell phones have been turned off. we will post the program on the heritage home page for future reference, and internet viewers are welcome to send questions, comments, simply e-mailing firstname.lastname@example.org. furth examines how public policy affects economic growth. his policy research emphasizes the roles of entrepreneurship and incentives in the u.s. economy, while his academic research focuses on the volatility in the developing world. prior to joining us here at
heritage, he was a visiting assistant professor of economics at amherst college and a visiting research scholar at northeastern university. he earned his doctorate in economics with a concentration in macroeconomics and international economics from the university of rochester, and he holds a masters degree in economics from rochester and a bachelors of science in and international affairs from northeastern university. please join me in welcoming salim furth. [applause] >> thanks very much. it is really good to see everybody here today. really organized this event and is responsible for bringing this great panel together apologizes that he couldn't be here today. i am pleased to have the privilege of joining this panel to discuss unions and membership in unions.
labor unions -- i am quoting james here -- are some of the largest political spenders in the united states. 106 of its spent $166 million budget on lobbying. that year the american federation of municipal and places spend even more, one third of its $2 million budget on those activities. election,t midterm unions operated 10 of the 20 largest political action committees. they made up of three of the largest five outside spending groups, excluding the 2 major political parties. report thatnions they spent over $600 million a year on politics and lobbying, and spent approximately $1.3 billion in 2010 -- 2009-2010 election cycle, not including local chapters of unions, which don't have to report spending. -- weis the potential call this paycheck fairness --
excuse me, paycheck protection -- four union members to discipline their unions by forcing the unions to hold a vote on whether spending is used politically or two withhold some of their dues for political purposes. the overwhelming majority of members would like to see that done. showed thattently union members want their union to get consent before spending on political activities. 14 resent is approved at the statement that it was unreasonable that unions are allowed to spend dues on politics without remember verbal -- without getting member approval. 79% believe that employees should have the right not to participate in unions supporting specific candidates or parties. we are here today with people who are actually working on these in very specific cases. them andg to introduce let them take it away.
, sitting to my left, served as dr. of national employee free to make, a coalition of groups dedicated to helping union members learn about the freedoms they have to leave union membership. victor is also executive vice president of the nevada policy research institute and overseas the execution of npri's strategic plan and policy initiatives. figure holds bachelor's degrees in history and math from hillsdale college, where he graduated with honors. prior to joining, he worked at the evergreen freedom foundation in washington state. has beencca friedrichs an element to school educator for years. since the first day of her career in 1988 she has been concern about the politics of teachers unions she is forced to actually support. -- to financially support. she gained insight or experience, attended statewide teachers union conferences in california, and she knows from
that experience that even union representatives have no real voice in union politics and can be bullied into silence if they disagree. today she is the lead tointiff in a lawsuit restore the rights of free speech and free association to the millions of public sector workers in the u.s. suit, filed with nine other teachers and the christian educators association international, is suing the national education association and the california teachers association and 10 local unions and superintendents. currently the ninth circuit court of appeals. rebecca currently teaches third and fourth grade in orange county, california. has taughtsema economics and social sciences in a community college, public high school, private high school settings in michigan since 1991. this includes 17 years as a full-time public school teacher. ofalso served as the member
a public school board for education including 2 years as president. robert left his union a year ago this month. he wants to help union members make informed decisions about membership and he has learned a great deal from his own experience and he is going to share some of that today. haslly, jennifer parrish led a statewide coalition in minnesota for the last nine years that fights against forced unionization of home child care providers. she regularly hosts trainings to inform providers about compulsory unionism. jennifer is also a plaintiff in a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of of childcareionism providers and other independent business owners. her legal efforts in addition to her grassroots and legislative advocacy work result in limiting the power of government to intervene in private industry on behalf of special interests. the state policy
network awarded jennifer the unsung hero award for her commitment to protecting the principles of freedom and work tirelessly changes state and local policy for the better. please welcome our panel, and i will hand it over to victor. [applause] >> thank you so much, salim, and thank you to the heritage foundation. imagine talking to a friend and having them tell you, for the last five years i've been a fan of the dallas cowboys but i don't really like the dallas cowboys. i would much rather be a washington redskins fan, but i cannot opt out of being a dallas cowboys fan. [laughter] you would think your friend has a screw lose because that is not howard works in america. we have the freedom to join and leave associations. go to a different church, switch political parties, counsel magazine subscriptions, even become a washington redskins fan. [laughter]
people do these things every day without a second thought that they wouldn't have the ability to leave an organization they are dissatisfied with. whether someone is rich or poor, young or old, we understand is intuitively in almost every area of life except for one, labor union membership. let me give you an example. in 2012, the nevada policy research institute, where i work, ran a small information leading teachers in the las vegas area know that they could leave union membership by submitting written notice between july 1 and july 15. the reaction was stunning. "ichers called us and said, have been a teacher for years but i never knew i could leave my union until you told me." others said, "i always wanted to leave but because the union put od right in thei middle of my summer vacation, i just forget." the story one teacher told us is especially noteworthy. new teacher went to
orientation and signed his card without realizing he was signing up for the union that she was just signing a lot of paperwork and accidental we sign a union card. he was just signing a lot of paperwork and accidentally signed a union card. rep for thebuilding union. it wasn't until we told him that union membership is optional that he was able to leave, and he gladly save $770 a year exiting the union. state.is a right to work but even a teacher who is a member of the union leadership didn't know they have the ability to leave their union until someone told them. that was stunning to us. hundreds of teachers that summer wrote letters saying "we want out," and at the end of the summer am a the teacher union member should decrease by over 800 teachers. that got us to thinking that if there is that many teachers in one school district, one small state, who want to leave their
union but they just don't know that they can or when and how to do so, how many hundreds of thousands or even millions of union members around the country want to do the same thing? working with the association of american educators, we created what is called a national employee freedom week, a wiki dedicated to letting union members know about these freedoms. -- itvent is a big part runs from august 10 to august 15. i am pleased to say that 81 organizations -- we have grown since i gave you that organizations 81 have come together for the sole purpose of letting union members know that they have the ability union.e their in just a little bit you will hear from rebecca and robert and jennifer and they will tell you their stories about leaving their union, or fighting forced unionization. i want to talk very briefly about the numbers their stories represent. as part of national employee
freedom week this year, we decided to conduct a poll, national poll of union members asking, if you could opt out of your union without any penalty, would you do so?/ we surveyed 454 union members across the country and over 28% that yes -- said yes, i want to opt out of my union if i can do so without penalty. there is 14.5 million union members, about 4 million people who want to leave. what is amazing is they already can, if they are in a right to work state. they could leave entirely and don't even need to pay agency fees. even if they are in a non-right to work state or the options aren't as good, they do have options. they could receive a rebate of their union's political spending . or they could become a religious objector and redirected their union dues from the union to a charitable organization that they find acceptable. we also wanted to ask the american public what they thought -- should union members have this right?
in a separate survey we asked, should the union employees without force or penalty be able to get of union member should? yes. of americans said workers should have that choice. they should be able to make the decision about union membership that is best for them. we have 4 million americans who want out of their union, and an overwhelming majority of americans who support their right to make the decision about union membership that is best for them. and now we have a national employee freedom week. 81 organizations around the country telling union members went and how to leave, and that they can leave. as you are going to hear, this is information union officials don't want their members to find out about. thank you. rebecca? >> good afternoon.] thanks for having me here today. i would like you to imagine with me a little bit. imagine that you finished your college journey you have entered your dream job, and upon
accepting your offer, you are told that you have to join a labor union as a condition of your employment. you will pay $1000 a year to an organization that claims to have your best interests in mind. imagine that this union fights for almost everything in which you believe. they badmouth the candidates for which you vote. they spend multiple millions defeating common sense propositions and things that you believe would actually improve your community. and they even send out voter that reflect the exact opposite of almost every vote you personally cast, but they claim that you agree with the union stance on the issues and the candidates. imagine that your union is involved heavily in local,
state, and national politics. they use your dues money to find 10 -- to fund candidates that you opposed to become government officials. now imagine that these union-friendly government officials sit opposite your at the bargaining table. they negotiate for the use of taxpayer dollars, but guessed was not invited? .he taxpayer the union enters collective bargaining on your behalf but they bargain against the taxpayers for things that are offensive to you personally. they constantly seek higher wages and sweeter defined-benefit pension programs just for you. ,very time you win unfortunately, the taxpayers and economy lose. imagine that your state and nation fall deep into debt -- of course, you don't have to imagine that.
,n unfunded pension liabilities largely because of sweet deals that were negotiated on your behalf, you watch helplessly as your money is used to defeat all that you hold true and right. now imagine you question your union on the use of your money. that is fair. and you are bullied, you are shunned, treated with disdain. you are labeled "radical right-winger" and spoken of in shameful terms. imagine many of your colleagues are so intimidated that they simply sit in fear and they are afraid to speak up. i want you to imagine that you are against all of this, but you have to pay for it out of your own pocket. continually
associated with all of these behaviors on television ads,rcials, in newspaper and simply through the title of your job. your imaginary world is my reality. welcome to the world of forced unionism. i first experience with teachers unions was during my year as a student teacher in 1987. every day i witnessed in horror as the neighboring teacher yelled at and belittled her adorable first graders, six-year-olds. they were terrified of her. there is no way that they could've learned in that environment, nor should they have had to. when i asked my master teacher what could be done about this unjust and what i thought was a dangerous situation, she told me and because of tenure laws
strong union advocacy, districts had a hard time ridding themselves of abusive and incompetent teachers. these kids didn't have much hope. that was the day that my master teacher educated me with any other problems within public sector unions. unfortunately, the union impacted her career and my career and my classroom in ways that were and still are very troubling to me. been -- thisi have will be my 27th year of teaching. for 46 years i've been forced to pay dues to a union -- 426 years i have been forced to paid dues to a union whose core police are in direct opposition to my own beliefs, my own morals, and my political leanings. for example, although i am for vouchers and i believe that parents should have the right to choose their children plus areation, my union dues
used to fight a parent's right to choose. although i am against tenure, higher taxes, and ridiculously high pensions for public sector employees, my union bargained for all of these things and more with my money. currently in my state, california, we have a $74 billion unfunded liability. yet my union continues to bargain for deals that are harmful to our economy. morese of these issues and , i opt out of the portion of my dues that the union admits are overtly political. payer,lled an agency fee but unfortunately i still pay for highly political collective bargaining against my will. i am not in a right to work state. since the union controls
teachers by controlling information, it was quite challenging to discover exactly how to opt out and even more, how to receive my annual rebate of the political portion of my dues, which you would think would be automatic, but it is not. early in my career i received a very tiny rebate. thankfully, later i discovered california teachers empowerment en.work, ct cten is a nonprofit organization that exists solely to help teachers discover their rights within forced unionism. with their invites i discovered how to opt out and how to receive my full -- with their advice i've discovered how to opt out and out receive my full rebate of the overtly political dues. if you opt out of union politics you still have to pay 100% of the collective bargaining dues. that is about 70% of the total dues. in exchange, you lose all rights
of membership and you lose your liability insurance, and you withine right to vote collective bargaining, even though you are paying 100%. lots of liability insurance scare teachers so much that most will not opt out for that reason alone. taught mey, cten also how to find liability insurance from an independent source. you heard about the american association of educators. i chose the christian educators association international, ceai, for my insurance, and the coverage and service are far superior, and my rebate more than covers the cost. my husband, who is a professor, was an agency fee payer for over 30 years before we discovered cten. although his union accepted his
fee payer status, they never once mentioned that he also needed to request a rebate of the dues that were used for over politics. so for over 30 years, you guessed it, he paid full union dues, funded full union politics against his will. the union was too happy to keep his money, even though he made a career as a fee payer that he didn't want to support their politics. us how toboth of request our full rebate so we both received a rebates from our unions. since fee payers have no voice within collective bargaining, you know i will mention again we pay 100% of the collective dues, at 1.i decided i would become a full union member so i could have a voice within my local union. for threed, i served years as a union site representative and as a local .oard member
i continually brought up the fact that many of my colleagues and i were disturbed and offended that our forced dues were being used towards politics and highly political collective bargaining that were against our moral codes and fiscal sensibilities. on every single occasion i was either ignored or i received this. silence and shrugged shoulders. when i attended an annual cta conference i asked my question during seminars, and another brave soul asked of the questions during a large gathering in a ballroom. on every occasion we were answered with hateful tones, rhetoric that made it very clear to everyone in the room that if you do not stand with union politics, you were a bigot. and on every occasion, the entire room fell silent because of the extreme intimidation of
the higher union officials. we literally felt like little children being bullied on the playground. even union representatives are silenced if they don't toe the line of far left union politics. so those who disagree with unions just step down from leadership most of the time. well, 10 brave teachers in california, the christian educators association, have had enough. 2 powerful law firms have come alongside us to plead our case. on august 30, 2013, we filed a federal lawsuit against cta, ne a, which is national education association, and our tent local unions. we desire to restore our constitutional first amendment right to free speech and free association. we desire to and foreseen in
some -- to end forced unionism. we also desire to end the practice of allowing the union to collect our dues -- maybe you are unaware, but you the taxpayer are funding dues collection for the union through paycheck reduction. we know this is a huge undertaking, truly david versus we believe that like david we have the truth on our side. by an represented incredible group of lawyers who are lovers of liberty. cir is a public interest law firm which specializes in first amendment litigation. one of our attorneys is here today, if you have questions for him. we are currently at the ninth circuit court of appeals, and
our goal is to get to the united states supreme court as soon as possible. what we are asking for is very simple. we want teachers to decide for themselves without fear or coercion whether or not to join the union. only the supreme court can vindicate our right to free speech and free association, so we are trying to get there as quickly as possible. i would like you to imagine with me one more time. imagine a victory from liberty in the united states supreme court. imagine that all americans currently forced into unions would be free to make their own choices. they could keep their unions if they like them. they couldn't leave them if they felt abused -- they could leave them if they felt abused. imagine if unions were no longer permitted to take money from unwilling donors, and that the bullying of teachers and others trapped in unions against their will would stop.
nogine that unions could longer afford our political process so that -- no longer thwart our political process, so that the individual vote could count for something. imagine that america could return to its former glory in education, and our children could thrive in our schools again. a victory for the teachers in this case could quite literally change our world for good. thank you for letting me speak to you today. >> thank you, rebecca. my dad was briefly a member of the united auto workers union. my mother was a teamster. i am from michigan, one of the bluest states in the union, or at least it used to be. i was a member of the michigan education association for 16 years. and as said by salim, i am free
at last. [laughter] it has been a month -- actually, it has been a year ago this month, and my stories such. in michigan, one of the bluest states, we have had a bit of a roll back of the power of the new and. some dish tower of the unions -- rollback of the power of the unions. michigan was doing very, very 70s, andthe '60s and ' then things happen. was mentioned by rebecca, our union also collected dues and used them for political purposes. but several years ago our legislature and governor pushed a lie were able to take the political action committee dues and make them opt-in, so we are no longer just forced to pay those. if you want to participate, you could. choice reared its head.
then about 2 years ago the legislature passed a law that said you as a union member will no longer have your dues or agency fees collected by your local school district. if you want to be part of that union, that is great, but you will pay to the union yourself and we will not include or necessitate the business offices of local schools to take the time to do such. we either wrote checks or the credit card number. like an idiot, i gave them my credit card number. [laughter] that was in 2012. and then suddenly, what are the biggest surprises, like a lightning, december and 2012, lansing, michigan, out of seemingly nowhere, kept under incredible wraps politically, amazing if you think about it, the legislature in michigan came legislation to work seemingly out of the blue.
it was prepared well ahead of time and had a lot of groundwork, but nobody heard word until suddenly in december it came through, and a lame-duck legislature that was denigrated in the media storm through, it made it. i was so happy that they will stop i thought -- i was so happy that day. i thought, finally i will have choice. the union ifut of your current contract is over. the school year starts fiscally juwan thursday and ends june 30 30.uly first and ends june i prepared my letter and mailed it on july 2 to the michigan education association, my local association, and my local business district office. i figured i was free. well, lo and behold, about a month and a week later -- a year ago now -- i saw my statement a charge for my monthly dues. tonight is abated no charge at
all. -- and i anticipated no charge at all. prior to this, in may and june, anticipating this glorious day of freedom, i e-mailed and phoned call and sent a letter to the mea. i heard nothing. when i saw the charge come i figured that maybe, just maybe, these attempts at communication didn't make it through. you never know. i was curious and very upset so i told my creek card company to stop payment and i disputed the charge. i looked online and that is when i discovered this magical opt-out window that it probably just suddenly appeared in a bylaw. nobody was aware of it before, my local president was an americ -- my local president wasn't aware of it. we probably agreed to that bylaw that no one was aware of. the i knew that i found
center for public policy. they had a lot -- wonderful form lette that i tailored to my own means and i knew they got it. i also m ricar -- i also canceled my credit card. [laughter] juwan dues because i did not want to put my credit card company through the nightmare. great and wonderful, i am out. and half later and i received a phone call in my home from a vice president of the mea. he is all nice and family, asking why would i want to opt out and what caused me to make such a decision. that was the only communication i ever received from the mea. i mean, it is a nice organization if you're into that kind of thing come i suppose, but i wasn't. so that was my story. unfortunately, not too many of us were made aware of that opt-out window.
i stumbled across it accidentally and paid for it. august, in michigan, by law, public schools do not start until after labor day. that is in september. some public schools have professional development days for the week before labor day. they have union meetings, it is scheduled in today. but they don't tell you these things. well, this last school year i was the only full-time teacher, to my knowledge, in my district who have opted out. i was a target for some. it wasn't real overt. it was somewhat subvert. i had a dysentery hearing. they were looking at every bit of what i did to make sure that it followed the line. i'm not saying this to intimidate other teachers from opting out, but you will face a little bit of resistance. that is how it is. but that's all right. nothing of values free. -- nothing of value is a free.
in michigan right now, the mea has apparently acceded to some more trends proceed with a form letter that ask is a member who wishes to opt out to go down the list and check off or initialed that you agree you will no longer accept their wonderful visa card opportunity, no longer accept their wonderful preplanned package of coupons, with various businesses that have toadied up. saynowhere on their does it "opt out." that is a bit of dispute. several teachers have contacted listen, iigan saying want to opt out, how did you do it? i was made aware that over 8000 teachers in michigan this last fiscal year, from july 1 to june over 8000014, michigan teachers have decided not to pay their dues. they opted out by saying, out.", i'm
they apparently did not use their credit card number. [laughter] the question brought forth to me later is that this year, if even more opt out, won't that make an impact on the unions or education association? by law we cannot call them unions. one that impacted their revenues? i don't care. it could, and if it does, they will, like any other business or service organization, either tailor their services to meet the demand of their customers or they will wither and die. survival of the fittest, let's not forget, was coined by an economist about business. a service organization, as the mea and nea are, that has never to pay for the services, the suddenly decides not to pay anymore, most service say ok, fine, we will not provide those services anymore. but no, it is like you are conscripted in the military and
you cannot just leave. amazing to myself. but some ask then the question, in michigan, anyway, we have a free rider problem, great economics term. i am denigrated as a free rider. you don't pay any fees or anything taurasi association and yet you benefit from their actions and negotiations. you buy law must be protected by the mea in disciplinary hearings to a certain degree. to which i respond i will in no way take advantage of any of these opportunities. i have also become a member of the american -- association of american educators, and i found that they provide equivalent productions -- arbitration, all these things made available, double the liability insurance, costbout 1/5 of the annual . as a teacher of economics, i would be a if i did not take
advantage of that. [laughter] so i did. again, that is a question of choice. i chose to do so. others may choose to stay in the union. that is fine. it is supposed to be about choice. if you choose not to invite somebody to your birthday party because they are not in the union anymore, that is fine, too. this week and being so special, and now that we are trying to get the message out across the country, this should be a question of choice. if you choose to contribute, if you choose to join, that should be your choice. if you choose not to play their reindeer games, that should also be a choice. thank you. >> hi. thanks for having me. mine is a little bit different in the sense that i am not an employee at all, nor do i have an employer to bargain and negotiate with. nine years ago decided to do
what a lot of americans do and i opened a small business, a small child care business that i run for my home. as any ash as with any other small business owner, i set my own rates and create my own working conditions and i choose which clients i'm going to serve good all the aspects of my business are under my full control. about a year after i opened my gentlemani had a walked into my home without knocking and during the day, while i was busy making lunch, so it was the busiest time of day -- for those of you who have children, imagine dinnertime, how kids are fussy and hungry and that is just with 2 or 3. i had 6 there that day that were hungry and crying and lunch was on the stove and he walked into my home without knocking and asked me to sign what he said was a petition asking the state for health insurance for childcare providers like myself. i had health insurance him and i was a little intimidated with
this man in my home uninvited, so i told him i wasn't interested. and this man was a professional, what he was doing. he would not leave. i gave him aser to why i did not want to sign this petition, he had prepared response. the group upset with me -- he grew upset with me each time i said no. it was a very intimidating experience. i just about decided it just to get him to leave -- just about signed just to get him to leave. the way i got him out of my home is that i told him i would sign it later if you would just leave at this time. he had been there for quite a few minutes and i could hear the lunch boiling over on the stove and i needed to get away. i told him i would sign if you -- if he would leave and he would come back and pick it up later that day. i think once you read the fine print he knew i wouldn't be in his did any -- i think he knew
that once i read the fine print i wouldn't be in his did any longer. when i had the opportunity to read it that is the first time i saw the word "union." the entire time he was at my house he never said anything about being in a union or working for union, yet no identification telling you what he was working for good when he was trying to pitch this petition to me he dropped the name of our local and state childcare association, so i kind of assumed he was somewhat affiliated with them. he said the childcare agencies were supportive of their efforts . but never once did he mention the word "union" or anything to do with unionization. as i was reading the fine print of this card, i was so shocked, because not only was it signing up to be a member of the seiu but it authorized him to take dues and fees out of child care s that come tock
me. the way they are trying to pull this scheme of childcare providers is even though we have our own rates and are pay privately, some of our family for childcareify assistance, and the program is just like any other government will c -- welfare program. the family goes in and they will fight for a certain amount and they choose how do spend. if they qualify for food steps they can shop at any grocery stores they like. that is the same scenario with childcare. the parent qualifies for the benefit. and they choose which childcare program to use that benefit at. one of my families at the time who happened to qualify for childcare assistance -- this union if i had signed the card would've taken dues out of that childcare assistance check and i would not have known i had signed up to do that. after that first initial experience, i thought this has
to be ian eagle this has to illegal.s has to be i initially discounted it. i thought, yeah, that is never going to happen. but they sent another one, and , that iscouple months when i realized that they are really trying to do this. this was in 2006. a press release from the seiu about unionizing childcare providers in illinois, which is the first state where they attempted to pull this scheme with child care providers. i saw that they were successful in another state and i knew that this was something that was actually a threat to my business. i found some other childcare providers who are also upset about this, fighting back against this, and we got
together and formed the coalition. our initial purpose was just to educate childcare providers on what these union organizers were doing at their homes, because they promise a lot of things, promised free health insurance, promised a raise, they would ask "what would you like to change about your profession?" parents always showing up late -- "we can fix that." whatever the hot button issue was coming we can fix that, just sign right here. the unions have admitted that it to comeard practice during those hours when we have children in our charge. they come and we are busy, they mislead us, they flat out lie to us about what the cards are. they take the cards with them so you get to see after the fact when you sign. they collect these after 6
years, and at the time we had a republican governor who was made aware this was happening and he promised he would not veto any legislation that came his way that would unionize childcare providers. but then in 2011 we had a new governor who had promised before he was even elected that if he was elected he would sign an executive order unionizing childcare providers. he was very little time -- he wasted very little time. at that time we created a website just so childcare providers could get information. at this point many other states had fallen victim to this, child care providers in probably a dozen states at that point had faced this new read of unionization. we knew that it was a real threat. we had a governor who is promising to do it. ,e did sign an executive order november of 2011.
and that was subsequently thrown out in the state court, kind of on a little bit of a technicality. it was a challenge of the means in which it was done. they said that if the governor cannot write the law, it would have to go through the legislative process. to date throughout the executive order because exhibit orders -- and they threw out the exec of order because executive orders cannot be used for that type of purpose did get a republican-controlled legislature in minnesota and in the next cycle that was gone. 2013, year ago this past february, our union friendly legislature and governor thatduced legislation reclassify childcare providers as state employees, it only for the purpose of unionization. we don't get a pension, we don't get benefits. .e set our own rates the state cannot give us any type of raise.
they have no control over our working conditions. we joke around that gosh, if they want to combine and give us a break for half an hour and change diapers, there would be tangible benefits there. there is no tangible benefit that comes along with this. what they are trying to argue that they can do for us is bargain and negotiate over childcare assistance rates, which is a matter of public policy. that is not something that the legislature should do out in the open with testimony and all those things from the public, the taxpayers that have to pay for it. said behind be closed doors as they are being set. after that lot was passed -- law was passed, we filed a federal lawsuit challenging the scheme on 2 fronts. first we challenged that the fees they would require us to pay were a violation of the first amendment. we took it a step further and said that just the exclusive
representation, taking private citizens and optimizing them into groups of -- into a bargaining unit, and then allowing a group, an organization, to exclusively represent these private citizens on matters of public policy is in itself a violation of the first amendment. shortly afterry we filed the lawsuit, and the lawsuit was enjoined for close to a year. unfortunately, because the union had not filed for election yet and hadn't been recognized yet, the circuit court of appeals dismissed our case on -- they didn't rule on the merits, they just said we had to wait until the union fouls for an election before the case is ready to be determined. so we wait. we wait for the unit to filed their election. a significant victory in -- on june 30 of this year, the same
organization and attorney that brought our case also brought a quinn,lled harris v. which was argued in front of the united states supreme court in january 2014. and on june 30 they issued a ruling that forced individuals full-fledged state employees, like home care providers and childcare providers, to pay compulsory union fees. it is a violation of the first amendment. for the first time, many of these home care and childcare providers come up for the first the in some cases, have option to choose whether or not you financially subsidize these politicalt are highly and often times, like you said, working on matters that not only you don't agree with but that can be harmful to your profession.
for childcare providers, the unions support mandatory -- not .andatory, universal preschool the children that we care for, those are our clients. you're taking paying clients out of our program and putting them in government-run preschools. we are paying for them to lobby for this, to pay -- to take clients out of our own program. the big issue for us now is to get the word out. national employee freedom week is a great event, because like the others mentioned, people don't realize that they have this right. unfortunately, not only to the unions not tell you about it, but they are dishonest about it. i can't tell you the number of providers we have spoken to who have tried to opt out only to have the union tell them, "oh, no, that ruling doesn't apply to you. you still have to pay your dues." and they won't let them.
it is important to educate, to have this opportunity to educate individuals who are facing compulsory unionism, so that they understand what their rights are, that they know that they can opt out, they don't have to subsidize that activity. the home care providers in michigan, when they have that option, when the state repealed that and they had the option to choose, 80% of them left. a huge financial blow to the unions, as it should be. as you were saying a minute ago, this is about the option to choose, and to have choice, and it is about freedom. we should be able to choose with whom we associate them with should be able to choose with whom we don't want to associate. the argument that allowing people to choose whether or not they are going to pay a union is just so detrimental to unions. the nra -- they are a political
powerhouse and they survive on voluntary dues because they provide a benefit to their members that their members appreciate. .nions can do the same thing they just need to figure out how to work for the members again, and that is why leaving a union is important. thank you. >> that's great. thank u so much. -- thank you so much. we will do some q&a. if you have a question, please wait until the microphone is broad use of that viewers watching online and on c-span will be able to hear your question. please identify yourself and any affiliation. i will step there so i can see everybody and i will take the privilege of asking the first question or 2. one of the things that emerges that -- thery is sense that there is a monopoly.
it is not only the choice of having different unions to represent you. you have one. would one result of employee freedom be that you could end up in a situation where there are multiple unions offering better services and competing to offer services? do you see any option for that? >> it could happen. a lot of times the unions push for that exclusive representation so the union is the biggest. as they represent -- recognize the benefit to themselves of having monopoly. if that provision was taken away , teachers and other professionals would come together and say "this is a group that i want to form." you see that all throughout society. that exclusive representation is the barrier right now. assome of you mentioned aae a group that offers some of the services the union offers. how would people who want to get -- what kind aae
of services are they offering and how would that interaction work? >> you want to take that one? >> sure. i will tell you, as a consumer, i don't want to spend too much time. i just want to buy and bogo. if you go to the website, it explains it very clearly, liability insurance, and they have coupons, too. and they provide arbitration services and things along those lines and it is very clearly labeled. there is transparency. if an individual wants to send a check or maybe accredit card number. -- maybe a critic or number. -- credit card number. >> might want to stick with checks. questions from the audience. gentle in the back row. >> my name is joel. it sounds like there is a terrible lack of communication because until this morning i'd never heard of the american
association of educators, and i'm sure a lot of teachers haven't, either. ace on what happened in wisconsin, why only 25% of nevada teachers thought having free choice was a good idea when as soon as right to work was put in place in wisconsin, i believe 80% of wisconsin education association members meet in the quick -- immediately quit. >> what happened in nevada is that there is still the paycheck deduction and union represents 60% of teachers throughout the state. there were a good number of teachers who just had never joined, and what our campaign focus on were those teachers who had joined but really wanted to leave. the union has fallen steadily over the last couple years and represent about 60% of teachers right now. >> question in the front. penny with cns news.
10 and a view comment on the department of education and its -- can any of you comment on the department of education and its role in this? it was created by teachers unions, and away. what role does the government play in promoting unions and making it harder for people to a choice? well, i think what happens a lot of times, specially at the state level, where these collective bargaining laws are made, you look at groups like wisconsin or michigan where they stop the union from taking the money out of the paycheck. that is great protection because taxpayers aren't funding it. when it comes to the issue of unions and leaving unions, i don't know if it is as much the department of education as one happens at the state legislature or even the county level. the counties can offer some control. really, those states are
>> have you thought about assembling other teachers? >> informing them? >> asking them to join the lawsuit. >> there is not to join our lawsuit. but i am fond of informing them about our lawsuit and educating them as the gentleman behind you mentioned. there is a terrible lack of communication out there. because of the monopoly, they actually control teacher e-mail and mailboxes. if i wanted to say that my
fellow educators know that there are other choices out there, or even about my lawsuit, if i slip a flyer in their mailbox at work i would be written up for that. if i sent them an e-mail, same thing. that is why there was a lack of communication for teachers. no one is allowed to get that to us in an easy form. >> if i could jump in, i should mention your lawsuit will have implications for the public sector union members. if the supreme court rules in their favor that will have repercussions. >> a question in the back. >> i would like to mention that
-- but he was a product of the depression. unions have outlived their time. it seems like in the teaching arena, you have civil search protection. you layer that on top of that. it is a double date at the taxpayers. do any of you note the history? i don't seem to remember when i was in school that education unions were so militant. is there an explanation of how this evolved? >> would you like me to take over? in 1977 there was a u.s. supreme
court case. in that case a teacher like myself was arguing that it was unconstitutional to have to pay union dues. he lost. the supreme court decided that in order to prevent freeloaders, and keep labor peace, the unions were given a monopoly leadership over public-sector employees. public sector employees were given no choice in the matter. it became a condition of employment that you had to fund the union. here is where people get
confused. i don't have to join the union. but i have to find the union. i am not a member, i am a union funded. it was clever on their part. it is hard for the public to understand. many say what is your complaint? you can opt out. they don't understand i can't opt out of all of the political collective-bargaining that is going on out there. that case is the reason that we are in this situation. our lawsuit seeks to overturn it. >> if i could speak to that freeloader question. it is funny to call someone a freeloader when you force them onto the bus, you make them sit there. and then say pay your bus fare. in no other place in society is another organization able to for
someone who is not interested and make them pay for something they aren't interested in. if a magazine company did what a union did there would be lawsuits throughout the country. we can leave organizations we don't like except labor unions. >> there is bullying involved as well. you dare to try to leave. >> i will give you the last question. for audience members today, public service employees and are thinking about potentially leaving their union, where can they go to get more information and help them make an informed decision? >> go to our website. employee freedom week. the best source of information would be to go to your local union, asked the procedure for opting out, ask to see a copy of your signed union car. that is supposed to have when
the window periods are. if you're in a right to work state, there is often these restrictions in the time periods of when you can leave. find out when that is and let them know that you want out. employeefreedomweek.com has good information. there is a lot of good resources out there for you to leave your union if you run into resistance. >> can i add? i don't mean to disagree with you. i just have to say if you go to your union rep, or your union president, most likely they will give you a blank stare. they don't know how to help you opt out.
i even tested this. i already knew how to opt out. i went to my union rep and asked her what do i do. she told me to check a box. just check this box. i said wait a minute. that box is money that goes to a political action committee. that is a separate donation that we are making even though we don't know we are making it. that is going to give me back $20 a year. she said that is what you do. check the box. but i'm still full union member. she argued this point with me for days. finally, asked her to please go ask the person she went to. and she is a very kind person. she didn't mean to mislead me. she is been misled. she has no idea how to help me
opt out. i have never met a union president, local level, that knows how to help you out out. it is important to go to the website. if you're from california, go on the california teachers empowerment network. they know everything. they will help you get through this national right to work. all these organizations that we have mentioned today, that is where you need to go for help. or you need to find a teacher, or if you are a public-sector employee, a firefighter, police officer. find an employee who is already a c-payer. don't go to your union rep. you need to give them letters eventually which need to be
sent, certified. all that. >> thank you so much. please join me in thanking our panel. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> members of keeping up with joint on twitter during their summer recess. congressman denny heck of washington says sitting down with the epa administrator today to talk about puget sound recovery. the congressman from was conference -- from wisconsin says he held an annual pastors meeting and they are pooling their ideas and resources to address hunger. kurt schrader said he was happy to host the global access for
him as part of the global access tour. , the global xm bank is set to expire without reauthorization. with house and senate expected to debate it when they return from recess him of banks resident and a number of other officials are in the middle of a 12 state tour talking about the bank. both will return to talk about the work on september 8. we will hear from disease spread diseases like the sars and murders virus. you can watch those discussions tonight starting at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. recent story from the "new york times" supreme --rt justice ruth gator been ruth bader ginsburg says the court has never embraced the ability for women themselves to
decide their destiny. the supreme court and women's rights were the topic of discussion on this morning's "washington eleanor smeal to talk about the future of the women's rights movement. let's begin with the supreme court. legal scholars saying the court has delivered blows to women's groups with equal pay, abortion, medical contraception. what is going on at the court in your opinion? >> major blows to women and that the hobby lobby decision for one was concerned with corporate right to privacy and barely mentioned women. it is preposterous. >> in the "new york times" recently they had a feature piece with supreme court with ruth bader-ginsburg.
here is the headline. justices ruling advance gays, women less so. and in the gay rights ruling t court uses the soaring language legal of liberty and equality, but in cases involving gender, the court has never fully embraced the ability of women to decide for themselves what the destiny will be. what needs to happen? >> i am glad the court is understanding the importance of gay and lesbian rights. but on women they are going backwards. these are backward trends. and it is the principle pal swing vote. kennedy is very uncomfortable with women's rights and thinks in a stereotypical, patronizing way, paternalistic and old fashioned.
and ruth bader-ginsburg has called him on it. we are losing the cases by 5-4 majorities, five men, five republicans. and the three women have been outraged especially on the hobby lobby decision that affects women's health. >> what has kennedy said specifically sfr >> for example, in the hobby lobby decision, he talked a tbt rights to privacy -- about the rights of privacy to a corporation. he ignored the entire history of the court for women to make their own decisions on contraceptives and said that tightly-held corporations had a right to religion, but ignored women. virtually didn't mention them. it was about women employees and their rights to have coverage for contraception. and then he narrowed it out
saying this is a narrow decision. actually, it is a broad decision. if you take what he said, what happens if a -- first place, corporations, i don't think people think of them as people that have religious beliefs. but he said so. that the so-called tightly-held ones. what happens if they had the religious belief and ruth bader-ginsburg says this, of a father would have to give permission for his daughter to work? or a husband would have to give permission? i mean, there is all kinds of very right-wing or very conservative views in some religions on women's roles. it's preposterous in this day and age that it could limit women economically. and remember on this, they said this only dealt with contraception. all other religious beliefs could not control health care coverage. by the way, they said it was
only for the four types of contraceptions like an i.u.d. which they said erroneously could deal with abortion, and it opportunity and in the the week they broadened it to all other contraceptions. and justice sotomayor called them on that. >> and this is what the conservative unit for america had to say about the hobby lobby ed decision. the contraception mandate served the group of women who supported that radical agenda to sacrifice our constitutional right to the free exercise of religion at the altar of so-called reproductive rights. it clearly works against those free thinking women c.w.a. represent who is reject society's imposed feminist values for the freedom envisioned by the founding principles of liberty and justice for all. >> and something like 88% of women during the reproductive life use modern forms of
contraceptive. s? not this is not a little minority. and that decision goes backwards. the supreme court in 1965 said that married couples had the right to the decision. they extended it to single people in 1972. are we going to fight this all over again? for who? and for them to say that gender equality -- and this is what kennedy said, was too broad and too unfocused of a factor to consider, yet it was okay to consider the sincerely held religious beliefs of a corporation. women don't count? we don't have sincerely held religious beliefs? we can't make these decisions
ourselves? >> so where does the movement go from here then? >> we have to reverse this decision. as you know t senate introduced a bill to reverse it. the only reason that wasn't voted on on the floor was filibustered by republicans. only three republicans voted for it. so elections matter. and women have to know that. that right now this court is crushing not only women's access to contraception, but they're crushing women's family medical leave. they have narrowed that. and they have narrowed pay equity decisions. and in other words, they're going after our economic and health care rights. and these are very serious. and so are the legislatures and so is congress and that part of congress by control and the republicans. >> and they say there is not a chance the that the house flips
and democrats get control of it, and the senate could lose the -- the democrats could lose control of the senate as well. and then you have republicans controlling both bodies. so the chances of overturning hobby lobby don't look great. >> and just remember this. every inch of the way for the women's movement, people have told us it's not possible. and they told us we can't do something. but the preponderance of women want full equal rights. and right now what they're doing is they're restoring the movement for the equal rights. people are saying, this is it. we can't keep debating every 20 or 30 years if women should have equal status or be treated like adults. and in fact, equal rights movement is moving again. >> remind viewers of the equal rights amendment and the history. >> equal rights amendment was approved by 35 states and congress. and right now it needs only three more states. it's being also considered at the state level and will be on the ballot in oregon for a state
that has been extremely successful. be upset if someone told me how i had to run my business. not everybody believes in abortion. mandate itot be a should not be mandated i a corporation. equal rights. i have been in the business world for many years and have had never had problems with equal rights. equal health, equal pay. just expect something for nothing. you have to really work hard and be successful. feministbelieve in the movement. i do not believe in unions. strongeromen become themselves by signing up for themselves. if you do not like with the company offers or does not offer, go and work for somebody
else. --t: there is no mandate guest: there is a mandate for affordable health care and contraception. the court has made it clear they're looking at all forms of modern caught -- contraception. this is an access to a health insurance plan and the only thing they say that the employer can regulate. why can't the women employees decide what health care coverage? is -- i think our record speaks for itself. we have improved educational access for women. we still do not have a quality and that what is it the out. host: from page of "the washington times."
i am thrilled know when glass ceilings are cracked. getting2014 and still the first that. only 20% of congress. we lagged behind most modern countries. so we have a ways to go. i always love to talk about the progress that i also want to remind people that we do have a ways to go. condor -- congress gender parity. women hold 835 seats in the house and senate. will gain an equal number
of seats in 2121 or 120 years. lex it is not acceptable and we will not wait that long. we have to start doubling that. we have been lagging way behind. >> how long have you been at this? guest: many years. about 40. we have opened a lot of doors. we just have to make sure none of the generation of young women are sacrificed. going next to catherine,
democratic caller. caller: i was listening to eleanor speaking about women's rights and that the menace movement and she totally has the whole issue wrong here in my opinion. because this is not an issue of women's rights. hobby lobby is making is a private corporation is upholding their religious views of what they feel they are accountable to god for. >> this is a point i want to make. when they say it is a small family corporation, this is as covering the tightly held corporation. they employ hundreds of thousands of people. this is not a small portion of the economy. so basically what we are really talking about is does the employer have a right to determine based on their
toigion what you're access various medical procedures are? >> the court went out of its way to say it does not apply to whether you give love transfusions, although some would say having a blood transfusion is right or does not apply to this or that i'm a but it does apply to whether or not you can have access to contraception. why carve this out for women. when in fact, it is necessary for men's health. most women want access. on reception is used not only to prevent earth but also for such asillnesses endometriosis or ovarian cyst. it is such an outrage to save the employer's religious belief count morrison the employees.
-- more than employees. www.c-span.org there was a poll conducted by women. 58% opposed the supreme court ruling that owners for for-profit companies can refuse to provide birth control. 58%. some say that is not a strong majority. you ask young women were thus counts, women more likely to have ovarian cysts and in demetrio tourists, that number skyrockets up. -- endometriosis, that number skyrockets up. one of the problems is older decision -- people are constantly making decisions for young women and we all forget how hard it is when you are young and important it is to have access to contraception. the averagesider age of the court, contraception
only became wholly available in the mid-60's. some of them did not have it available. i am talking modern pills, in their lifetime, reproductive now, women take it for granted. this is a step forward. not only for their health but their economic opportunity and well-being of their families. host: john next, independent scholar. caller: good morning. a couple of what questions and comments. first off, as a single male or older male i am forced by the government to buy health insurance and pay for contraception for women. that is wrong. what men.
to lay arounding with women's access. those pills are not that expensive. you are not being denied anything. andcan get a prescription put down cash on the table for maybe $20. thet: you do not understand lost of modern contraception. it can go $600 per year and then you have to pay for doctors visits. sometimes only six months at a time. run around 220 and a major city. talking about 1000 or so. for an iud about 1200. birth control is the number one out-of-pocket expense
for young women and can run quite high for young women who are living on a minimum wage. like i said, they have a federal funded group. people can pay on a sliding scale. very expensive. medicines are subsidized. for anyone of low economic means, this is not really an issue. guest: don't i wish. family-planning funding is covering about 15% of the needs. in fact in some states such as texas they have cut back to access for family-planning. clinics close
because of the ideological view of right-wing governors. so it is not the case it is readily available to the poor. this is health insurance for employees. it has been usually covered. that has been covered under the religious beliefs they will be able to cut back as we find that unexceptional. i would like to give you my opinion of why i believe hobby did it for money and not for religious reasons. this corporation does business with dina who insists women get abortions -- does business with china who insists women get abortions. that is why i believe is just about money and not religion.
believe this could be about money. i also believe first control in the entire fight over abortion is denying access for middle income and lower income people. there has been some tendency among people who want push for higher birth rates. and in fact take the decision out of the hands of individual people. fairhope, alabama. independent caller. her premise is extremely flawed and playing loose with the facts. the future of women's rights movement, a very important group is being left out of this. the future of in utero women's
rights. just as women, minority and blacks have been focused upon. the recent world congress of the obstetrician and gynecologist met and the huge number of leading scientists dated very clearly it is unknown and they believe the so-called contraceptives are in fact safe. right now playing loose with external area facts and this has not been mentioned today. guest: american college of favors our position on access to contraception. scientists overwhelmingly position our position. basically women themselves. think of how many women, the percentage. close your eyes to the people you know that are modern forms
of birth control. some are making this a discussion. the rest is not even understand what we are talking about. host: what do you mean? ofst: look at almost all europe, birth control is free. what is the result? it means you have lower rates of abortion. right now we know in our own birth controlever is more widely available, abortion rates go down. we also know women want access. it is not just women. couples, people cannot imagine a life in which they can and where they have their children. this is a fundamental human right. fundamental right we should not deny women. --sthost: a tweet
peter in maine, republican line. caller: there has been no denying of contraception. off hobby lobby authored 16 forms of it. -- offered 16 forms of it. there are three or four they do not agree with. host: you finish your thought and then i will have eleanor go. --er: dave bought them they provided the contraception all along. the hobby lobby case knocked out for forms of contraception, first control, morning after, iud. week of thatin a they issued another advisory in the wheaton college case in which they said they brought in the 22 forms. their decision covers
contraception. i do not just feel it. you are hearing the three women on the court have lately said this, that they said it is just before forms and within a week they said it would cover contraception as a whole. host: this hobby lobby decision, as you can tell from the people that have picked up the phone and called in as rallied for >> i think women are far more energized. young women who literally this is their life. this is not some academic question to them. the reason you see a gender gap
in the polling is because women really care. with the had it restrictive regulations of right-wing republicans. in addition to that, just use -- loseight this election because we're terrible gerrymandering. it is not one person one vote. we wish it was. more people voted for devon product majority in the house last time than they did for republicans. it is just that we had very gerrymandered districts in which by the way are being questioned by the gerrymandering in florida. don't think we do not have popularity. in fact they are backing themselves into defending an out-of-state old-fashioned idea of not giving women full equal rights. even though the calls are not , i cand right now
guarantee or you young women running around trying to get to the kids to school and it into work do not have time to call, but i can guarantee you they know what is happening. host: another tweet -- another call in texas, democratic caller. caller in texas. is that right? caller: yes. i think a woman should be able to use whatever contraceptive she wants. not necessarily what the employees that she should. women should do with their body as they please s.
someone -- men on the supreme court should not be putting their two cents in because they are men. what about the supreme court? guest: it does show you toward appointments are crucial. that is why the senate is so crucial. we have had a senate that has been filibustering and slowing down the appointment of judges but eventually we're going to get the majority back. i think 2016 will be a very good year. how long can they filibuster like this? in the old days you had to stand there and filibuster. i think a lot of people do not realize how many filibusters there have been against president obama's appointment. julie, independent caller. fight: i just think the
over everything is ridiculous. if you are an adult, you should be able to make your own decisions. the third is right or wrong, it is your decision. we should all be able to make our own choices. women should be treated as full-fledged adult, equal rights to make their decision. that is what this is about, right to privacy and equality and dignity. they know themselves best on these health care decisions. host: amy on twitter says -- air. on the would like to ask eleanor if she is a progressive. i am a feminist. i am not sure what you mean by
progressive. forer: i would like to ask yes.ia progressive? guest: a progressive is someone socialist/communist -- guest: i am not a communist. never have been. i have spent my life working for civil rights and the met -- women's rights. my record is very clear. i have worked on every issue late forgrating little my young girl pitching high-speed right now. everything from integrating little league to want on that used to say women and men. every step of the way.
and right now our organization is very diverse. we have a global position. we fight for the rights of afghan women to have the right to work, education. fought for title ix, which gave is equal education rights. thename it, we have been on frontlines. i know exactly what we are fighting for and how fragile the rights are. we fought for title ix, equal educational opportunity for women that cannot be discriminated with federal funding, and yet every decade we have to protect that right. back to creating single-sex classes that are academic. they'd do not have to be exactly comparable. vigilanthave to keep because this matters. i think most people are grateful for the advances women and girls have had, and that is because the active women's movement. host: what do you make of this
headline in today's "usa today's" section -- inside the jump age shows the workforce is mostly white, asian and mail. -- male. guest: let's face it, silicon valley has a lot to improve. we still have a largely sex segregated work worse. jobs that principle women only do versus jobs principally only males are doing. have we improved it? you bet we have. but it has not been keeping pace. one reason apple is concerned i
am sure is we find those companies with more diversified work forces do better economically. host: mason, dayton ohio. democratic caller. good morning. i am shocked by the women are calling in, and a bit mortified. a lot of the rights they take advantage of every day, they are wanting to work backwards from those rights. they are the ones saying corporations are right. corporations should not allowed to give out birth control. for starters, it is not their health care. that is what it is, a health-care plan for an individual. i do not want my company saying they do not want to have blood transfusions, do not want me to have a birth control that literally saves my life every month because i cannot be afford to be pregnant, i could die. not are saying it is
important to them that a corporation can tell me i don't like the birth control, so you cannot have it. we do not do that with smoking. rights ofis the everyone else more important than women? you are absolutely right. for those women who say that is not true, they are not being honest. can i ask you how old you are? caller: i am the big 4-0. host: is this a big enough issue that you will vote jacob calle?: caller: absolutely, and it usually is. in the past several years it has become more divisive. so i think it is even more important for the selection that
we vote for women's rights. host: she says even more divisive and her time. do you share that? has happenedt what since 2000 10. state legislator after state legislature that it's controlled by a white -- right-wing majority and governor have cut back on access to reproductive rights. no question about it. they're closing abortion clinics. they are putting terrible restrictions that people had not thought of, like catch-22 restrictions. in federalcisions court in mississippi and alabama. they have to go to the supreme court. violence at the clinics,
something like one in five clinics that are experiencing violence or stocking of the abortion provider. , they did not run in 2010 on we will cut that woman's rights, but that is what they're doing. it is like let's do it again. where do you come up with this? even when it is not necessary. i think it has caught the attention of american women, and they are as shocked as that caller is. her body cannot take another pregnancy. her for her, her body cannot take another pregnancy. i know how that feels. calleda blood disease mediterranean anemia, which you
cannot have repeated agassiz without threatening your own well-being. we act like every woman is a carbon copy in this is no problem, pregnancy unlimited. a health care problem and she should have this decision. in fact, i believe an employer does not really have the right of themedical records employee. i am an employer and not looking at the medical records of my employees. they have a right to their own privacy. i do not know where we are getting this from that some employers seem determined. you are not using it for birth control come you are using it for ovarian cysts? what business of theirs to know what your medical challenges are. host: janet, independent caller. caller: thank you for taking my
call. first, i wish the term pro-life would never be used. i am not for the death penalty, the guess i ami wish you woulde term anti-choice. that is what it is. it is pro-choice and anti-choice. secondly, dominance meal, i don't know where you get the energy to keep fighting this. i cannot believe we are still talking about it. , and i haves old never used birth control in my life. lot of children and i could afford to have a lot of children. i had nine. in fact, i had seven in 6.5 years. wantedfforded them and i them. when i see these men rail about contraception, i wonder how come they do not have as many kids i do -- as i do. some used birth control, somewhere abstinent -- maybe
their mistresses used birth control, i don't know. but i recall the first time i thomasgress, all men talking about women's bodies. this was a long time ago. we are talking the 1960's or the 1970's. that theyrrassed would be talking about this. but i understand it. they are so obsessed with women's bodies. men are obsessed with women's bodies. finally, i don't think it is a war on women. i think it is control. men want to control women in every way. she has expressed some of my sentiments very well. by the way, when she is saying it first time she saw them, was 1971 when they had hearings on the birth control pill. how long ago that is.
it is just incredible. now we have a pill that is knowingly safe -- that is not only save, but the instances of cancer are less. it is a different bill. it has evolved. -- it is a different pill. it has evolved. where talking about iud's, injectables. there are many forms of contraception that helps women make decisions to protect their own health and the well-being of their family. she wanted a lot of children and could have them. i could not. nowadays, young women can make they decisions easier if can afford it and have access. birth control is a public health issue. by the way, justice kennedy said in a decision that a mandate based on public health -- that
these factors were too brought on focus. but the sincerely held religious belief of a corporation was none too broad for focus. host: kathy, pennsylvania, a republican caller. caller: my question is this. my daughter got pregnant for the fourth time. there were medical problems and she worked, but she had her baby. that baby came out a beautiful, wonderful little baby girl. you tell me whose rights would have been taken away if my daughter had killed that baby in utero. we would not have had her. even her older siblings love her. you talk about women's rights, women not having rights. my daughter makes more money than her husband. as a matter of fact, she makes more money than her brother who
has far dangerous jobs than she does. we got your point. we will have eleanor smeal respond. guest: we are talking about contraception. you had a good result. that's great. women themselves and their families have the right to make these decisions. i don't want to go deep into the abortion question, but i do want to say that the right to determine when and if you are having a child has to be with the individuals, not with the corporation. but this question is not on abortion. it is just on contraception. that issue is well decided in our country, and i happen to believe the abortion question is one thirdrealize that of women at least have an abortion in their lifetime? that is not academic to them. at least.
i happen to think that number is much higher. host: eleanor smeal is the resident thetomorrow, it look at foreign policy in the so-called also,doctrine will stop an investigative reporter from the "washington examiner" talks about his series of articles on congressional incumbency and his proposals for term limits. the "washington journal" every morning live right here on c-span. tonight, we will hear from government health experts tracking- charged with diseases like monkeypox. here's a look. >> one of the reasons researchers like neil and others
like cdc investigate animals is emerging diseases in people are often traced back to animals. one of these situations occurred in 2003. the first hint we had that something had gone terribly wrong, you can see in this picture of your. this is a three-year-old girl who lived in wisconsin and she developed these very odd, very disturbing skin lesions. i'm too young to have been vaccinated for smallpox. i was the first generation of kids to did not get a smallpox vaccine. but there were many who dedicated their careers to eradicating this disease on the world. they looked at this picture and said that is smallpox. we were very worried, especially when a second case was reported just a few days later from another part of wisconsin. these two patients did not know each other. one was a three-year-old girl and the other was a businessman, but they had one piece of history in common. they had those been bitten by
sick at prairie dogs. watch all of that tonight at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. we will also have more on the focus on he and the united states on c-span2. on c-span three, a look at world war ii. that's all tonight on the c-span networks. >> this month, c-span -- c-span presents debates on what makes america great -- evolution, genetically modified foods, issues spotlighted with looks at veterans health care, irs oversight, and campus sexual assault. new perspectives on issues including global warming, global rights, fighting infectious disease, and food safety. our history tour showing sights and sounds from american historic places. find our schedule one week in
advance at c-span.org and let us know about what you think about you are watching. like us conversation, on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> now, former house the grand presidential candidate newt gingrich on ways technology and smart phones can be used for veterans health care great his remarks came at an event hosted by the american enterprise institute. this is one hour. arthur brookshank and aei for giving me this opportunity to propose a very large, bold rethinking of of the health care system and the bureaucracy in the context of the veterans administration crisis. over aa and i spent decade as part of the aei family and it's always good to be back here discussing ideas. i also want to thank the cnn
investigative team who stayed on the v.a. scandals until they broke through and became a national crisis. stories were cnn dismissed as isolated, small problem's, but the teams continued effort through the facts until they had to be dealt with. our thinking on the future of the veterans administration has been deep we influenced by chairman jeff miller and their fine committee staff on house and senate will stop we are much further down the road because of their health. they work tirelessly and against a lot of opposition to help america's veterans have a that her future. finally, i would like to thank our chief researcher on the v.a. and developed the interactive map you will see in a few minutes. everyone atto thank gingrich productions for helping us through these times.
,his is going to be a bold indeed by washington standards, a radical speech. terms that aree not common in washington policy circles. in order to avoid shocking more disorienting you, let me share with you a few key ideas. smartphone. smartphone apps. ipad. facebook. google. con academy. do a lingo. "words with friends". as you can see, this is not your typical washington policy speech, yet you know in your non-policy life that his words are now part of your everyday life. facebook was founded in february of 2004. 10 years later, has 1.3 ilion
monthly users. there is no government subsidy for joining faith and no training program for out to be on facebook. google was founded in number 1998 and has grown into a worldwide index of olives with well over a billion searches a day and a host of other today, 3-4 americans owns a smartphone. you can get a smartphone for free with a service contract or for as little as $50 online. many people in the developing world revealed they will invest in a smartphone the four indoor plumbing.